SADASIVAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who retired from service on 30-9-1979 as a Divisional Forest Officer in the service of the Government of Kerala has filed this writ petition for the quashing of Exts. P-4 and P-5. Ext. P-4 is the memo of charges dated 14-8-1980 issued by the 2nd respondent, the Chief Conservator of Forests, Trivandrum; and the substance of the charge is that the petitioner had recommended for the registration of property mark to M/s. Guptaji Brothers, Calicut, for the year 1967-68 to trade in sandalwood in violation of the provisions of the M.P P.P. Act without ascertaining the genuineness of the application, source of stock etc., with the result that Sri. M.L. Gupta, Managing Partner of the firm could manage to indulge in the trade of smuggling of sandalwood. There are other allied averments and charges contained in the said memo of charges and the statement of facts. Ext. P-5 is the copy of G.O Rt. No 193/80/AD of the Agriculture (Forest Estt.) Department dated 22-1-1980 passed by the Ist respondent State of Kerala which inter alia states as follows:-

(2.) In this context it has to be remembered that admittedly the disciplinary action has been instituted with respect to events which took place in the year 1967. It would appear that this cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the initiation of the proceedings is after a lapse of more than four years from the date of the event which gave rise to the disciplinary proceedings. No doubt, under R.3, Part.3 of the Kerala Service Rules the Government reserved to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if in a departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner was found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement This, however, is subject to the further restriction that such departmental proceeding shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. (Vide clause (ii) of sub-r.(b) of R.3). This being the position, Exts. P-4 and P-5 are liable to be quashed; and I order that they would stand quashed. In view of the decision taken on the question of disciplinary proceedings, needless to say that the petitioner will be entitled to get his pension unaffected by the disciplinary proceedings that has been initiated against him. I order accordingly.